K LAXMINARAYANA ADIGA Vs. R GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' revision petition against the concurrent findings of the lower appellate Court and the trial Court in the matter of refusing interim injunction in a suit brought by them to restrain the respondent decree-holder from executing his decree obtained against the 2nd respondent who was the tenant.

(2.) The facts themselves are hot in dispute. The petitioners were not parties to the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to evict the 2nd respondent. The ground for the eviction petition was that the 2nd respondent -tenant had unauthorisedly sub-let the premises to the present revision petitioners. That decision has become final and conclusive. At the stage of execution, the revision petitioners filed O.S.No.498/1987 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Udupi for declaration that the decree passed in HRC.No. 40/1979 is not binding on them and the 1st respondent-1st defendant should be restrained from executing the said decree. They also made an application for interim injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree.

(3.) It is most unfortunate that both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have gone into the merits of the suit itself while disposing of the interlocutory matter which was confined to their entitlement to a temporary injunction and no more. It is now settled law that sub-tenant unauthorisedly inducted by the tenant is not a necessary party in proceedings under the Act. If that is so, then the 1st respondent was not bound to make the petitioners also respondents in his eviction petition before the Court under the Act. Section 30 of the Act provides that not withstanding anything contained in any other law, where the interest of the tenant in any premises is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Court under the Act for the recovery of possession of such premises the order shall subject to the provisions of Section 21, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereto shall be given to the landlord by evicting such persons therefrom, subject to the proviso that nothing in that section will apply to any person who has an independent title to such premises. Therefore, the 1st respondent under special enactment has obtained a right to execute the decree which he Mas obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Having regard to the non-abstante clause with which the said Section 30 of the Act begins, it should prevail over all other rights which the petitioners may have, if they are admittedly occupants of the premises in question unless they set up independent title to the property in question.